National Political Party Campaign Finance Reports for June 2012

The National Parties Are Holding Their Own Financially at the Eighteen-Month Mark

But Standing Pat Would Be a Relative Decline for Congressional Parties after Citizens’ United

Follow CFI on Twitter:

NOTE: This release has been revised to add the years 1992-1998 to the bar chart, while leaving the text of the release unchanged. 1992 was the first election with disclosure of soft money. The purpose of the revision is to clarify the following point: 2000 and 2002 represented by far the high points before McCain-Feingold for party fundraising (hard and soft money combined.) After McCain-Feingold, the parties raised about as much hard money at 18 months between 2004 and 2010 as hard-and-soft money combined in 2000. They also raised at least 50% more in hard money alone in 2004-2010 than in hard-and-soft money combined between 1992-1998. In 2012 the parties' hard money at eighteen months exceeded hard-plus-soft in 2002. The evidence therefore shows that national parties after McCain-Feingold quickly rebounded in their hard money receipts alone to levels that equaled or exceeded their historic levels of combined hard-plus-soft money.

In an election filled with tumultuous campaign finance change, the six major national political party committees so far have been holding their own financially. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on July 20, the two national committees and four congressional committees had raised a combined total of $792 million in the eighteen months between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012.

This put the parties well ahead of the previous hard-money record years of 2008 ($625 million at eighteen months) and 2004 ($616 million)
(see Table 1), which were the first two presidential elections after parties had to raise all of their money as hard money under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA or McCain-Feingold).
In fact it even puts the parties ahead of the combined 18-month hard-and-soft money records of $644 million in 2000 and $720 million in 2002.
(Information about 1990-2002 is available in FEC press releases of
September 2000
and 2002.)

The parties’ hard money success since 2002 has come about because the parties replaced soft money with (a) money from small donors coming into all six committees, (b) money from Members of Congress to the four Hill committees, and (c) money from presidential candidates’ joint fundraising committees coming into the RNC and DNC. More about each of these points will come later.

If asked to predict, we would expect the parties to continue their record fundraising through the full two year cycle. We note that even though the parties in 2004 and 2008 were behind 2000 at the eighteen month mark, both of these elections showed the parties raising more in hard money over the full two-year cycle than the parties had ever before raised in hard and soft money combined
(see Table 4 and 5.)

However, this does not mean all six committees are doing equally well. The DNC and RNC are financially strong. The four congressional committees look well compared to years past, but none has the money yet to counter the greatly expanded barrage of non-party independent spending that is likely to come in key races after Labor Day.

The DNC and RNC

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) raised roughly the same amount of money between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. This is a substantial improvement for the DNC over 2008, when it was outraised by the RNC both at the 18-month mark and for the full two years
(see Tables 1 and 4). Whether the DNC will continue to keep pace is an open question: the RNC substantially outraised the DNC in June, and ended the month with more cash in hand
(Table 1).

The RNC’s lead in June could be a sign of a difference between the two parties’ fundraising sources. More than half of the DNC’s receipts these
past 18 months came from presidential joint fundraising committee transfers. The number is high partly because the Democrats, with their nomination
settled, could do joint fundraising 2011 as well as 2012. This gave the DNC an early advantage because individuals are allowed (within an overall aggregate)
to contribute $30,800 per national party committee per calendar year (not per election cycle). In contrast with President Obama, Gov. Romney did
not do joint fundraising until after clinching the nomination several months into 2012. That means the RNC’s parity in overall receipts has been
accomplished with less help from joint fundraising. Romney Victory Inc. so far has transferred less than half as much to the RNC as the Obama Victory
Fund transferred to the DNC. This is likely to even out over coming months.

A noticeable shift in the sources of funds for party committees demonstrates the importance of joint fundraising committees have taken on in 2012
(see Table 2.) In the years after BCRA, the parties made a concerted effort to raise money from small donors. At this point in the cycles of 2006, 2008 and 2010, the DNC and RNC had raised about half of their money from donors who had given a cumulative total of $200 or less. But in 2012, the RNC’s small donor portion so far is down to 35% and the DNC’s is only 25%. This percentage shift came less from a decline in the dollar amount from small donors than from an increase from large donors. Donors of $30,000 or more have been responsible for $94.8 million (42%) of the DNC’s money through June and $63.5 million (30%) of the RNC’s. The joint fundraising committees have been responsible for many of these larger donations.

One important caveat should be offered before using the DNC’s and RNC’s 18-month numbers to predict the election. In the last two presidential elections, the DNC and RNC raised more money in the final six months of the cycle than the first eighteen
(Tables 1 and 4). There is still a long way to go, and a lot of money yet to be raised.

Hill Committees

With some slights ups and downs, each of the four congressional campaign committees through June 30 had raised amounts that were more or less similar to what the same committee had been raising in elections since 2006
(see Table 1) . The two Democratic committees each raised about $10 million more than their Republican counterparts, but the GOP committees had slightly more cash on hand.

When we look at sources of funds, we have been forced to present different information for the House and Senate. We present 18-month information for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). However, we can only present 17-month data for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) because the Senate does not file its records electronically. Under current law, Senate party and candidate committees send their paper records to the Secretary of the Senate, which transmits them to the FEC for entry by hand.

According to the available records:

Small Donors: The DCCC and DSCC each have raised more of their money from small donors than in years past, while the NRCC and NRSC both show declines.

Members’ Contributions: The NRCC had a substantial uptick in contributions from Members of Congress (from 18% to 27% of all funds) while the DCCC’s fell (24% to 16%). The Senate committees typically raise less money from incumbent Members, but the DSCC went up from 1% to 7% between 2010 and 2012.

But the big problem for the four congressional committees is systemic. Each is raising more or less the same amount of money as in years past, but the congressional elections of 2012 will take place in a different environment.

In 2004 and 2006, the party committees were able to make expenditures in competitive races that were sufficient to make them the most important players during the campaigns’ closing weeks (see here for 2006).

But in 2010, the growing role of non-party independent spending groups meant that the largest groups on the Republican side spent as much money as the parties in a number of competitive races (see here for 2010).

Everyone expects non-party committees to play an even bigger role in 2012. Therefore, if the congressional committees continue on more or less on the same fundraising path as in 2006-2010, that means their relative importance would be likely to decline.

TablesTable 1. National Party Receipts and Cash as of June 30, 2004-2012

Table 2. National Party Committee Sources of Funds, through June 30, 2006-2012

Table 4. National Party Committee Receipts and Sources of Funds at the end of the full two-year cycle, 2000-2012.

Table 5. House and Senate Party Committee Receipts and Sources of Funds at the end of the full two-year cycle, 2000-2012.

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute. Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial supporters.